KSU Swine Day 2014 2014 KSU Swine Day Program 8:00 a.m. 3:30 p.m. - - PDF document

KSU Swine Day 2014

2014 KSU Swine Day Program

• 8:00 a.m. – 3:30 p.m. ‐ Trade Show Open
• 9:45 a.m. – Delta Coronavirus and PED by Drs. Hesse, Dritz, and

Woodworth

• 11:00 a.m. – What’s next for the Swine Industry by Dr. DiPietre
• 11:45 noon ‐ Pork Lunch in Main Ballroom
• 1:30 p.m. – Improving survivability of low birth weight pigs by
• Drs. Nelssen, Davis, and Gonzalez
• 2:00 p.m. – Keeping up with rapidly changing ingredient prices

by Drs. Tokach, DeRouchey, and Goodband

• 3:00 p.m – How retailers are changing the Australian Swine

Industry by Dr. John Pluske

Recent K-State Research to aid decision making during rapidly changing feed cost

www.ksuswine.org

Recent K‐State Research to aid decision making during rapidly changing feed cost

• The ones that do the work!

2014 Swine Day Report

available at: www.KSUswine.org

• 32 papers
• 41 experiments
• 28,791 pigs

5

www.KSUswine.org

Nursery diet updates Premix updates Journal papers Abstracts Podcasts Swine Day

Undergraduate research projects

• Kiah Gourley

‐ Lactational estrous

• Jake Erceg

‐ Mycotoxins

• Annie Clark

‐ Pepsoygen

• Korinn Card

‐ EPI system

• Andrea Jeffries

‐ Soy proteins

• Suzy Fowler

‐ Mycotoxin binders

• Cheyanne Evans

‐ Nutrigold & bovine plasma

• Jacob Jacquez

‐ Late finishing amino acids

Congratulations!

• Undergraduate Student Achievements

– Kia Gourley, Midwest ASAS 1st oral undergraduate competition and NPB Scholarship recipient – Jake Erceg, NPB scholarship recipient – Jared Mumm, NPB scholarship recipient

• Graduate Student Achievements

– Chad Paulk, Midwest ASAS Young Scholar – Hyatt Frobose, 1st place Ph.D. oral abstract – Kyle Coble, 2nd place Ph.D. oral abstract and Pinnacle Award winner from International Ingredients Inc. – Marcio Gonclaves, Pinnacle Award winner from International Ingredients Inc.

11

Source: DLR 11-4-2014

Triumph barn dump contract

Carcass Feed cost base, $/cwt $/ton $ 90.00 $ 300.00

Carcass Feed cost base, $/cwt $/ton 90.00 $ 300.00 $

Triumph barn dump contract

Carcass Feed cost base, $/cwt $/ton $ 90.00 $ 300.00

Carcass Feed cost base, $/cwt $/ton 90.00 $ 170.00 $

Continue to focus on feed cost

• DDGS
• Amino acids
• Fat
• Avoid adding additives that don’t provide

benefit

– Some additives do provide benefit

• Don’t forget feed processing
• Rethink practices that cost money

K-State DDGS Calculator (Variable DDGS Energy)

Corn, $/bu 3.50 $

151.79 $ 76% =DDGS to Corn price ratio

SBM, $/ton 400.00 $ Use fat to equalize energy No Monocal, $/ton 600.00 $ Include L-Trp in diets? Yes

DDGS N

Limestone, $/ton 36.20 $ Energy as % of corn or oil content Oil, % Lysine HCl, $/lb 1.30 $ DDGS oil content, % 8.0% DL-Met, $/lb 3.50 $ Value of pig gain, $/lb 0.70 $ L-Threonine, $/lb 2.50 $ Fat, $/lb 0.30 $ DDGS, $/ton 115.00 $ L-Trp, $/lb 13.50 $ Start weight, lb 50 75 125 170 210 246 End weight, lb 75 125 170 210 246 280 DDGS maximum value F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 Total DDGS % at max savings 40 40 40 40 40 40 Max savings, $/pig $0.73 $1.66 $1.57 $1.49 $1.44 $1.43 $8.32 DDGS levels chosen 30% 30% 30% 30% 25% 0%

• Savings, $/pig

$0.55 $1.26 $1.26 $1.21 $1.00 $0.00 $5.29 Calculator attempts to consider economic return per pig from change in diet cost, feed efficiency, and growth rate. It does not account for any economic impact on yield or iodine value.

K-State DDGS Calculator (Variable DDGS Energy)

Corn, $/bu 3.50 $

151.79 $ 76% =DDGS to Corn price ratio

SBM, $/ton 400.00 $ Use fat to equalize energy No Monocal, $/ton 600.00 $ Include L-Trp in diets? No

DDGS

Limestone, $/ton 36.20 $ Energy as % of corn or oil content Oil, % Lysine HCl, $/lb 1.30 $ DDGS oil content, % 8.0% DL-Met, $/lb 3.50 $ Value of pig gain, $/lb 0.70 $ L-Threonine, $/lb 2.50 $ Fat, $/lb 0.30 $ DDGS, $/ton 115.00 $ L-Trp, $/lb 13.50 $ Start weight, lb 50 75 125 170 210 246 End weight, lb 75 125 170 210 246 280 DDGS maximum value F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 Total DDGS % at max savings 40 40 40 40 40 40 Max savings, $/pig $0.73 $1.47 $1.35 $1.30 $1.28 $1.36 $7.49 DDGS levels chosen 30% 30% 30% 30% 25% 0%

• Savings, $/pig

$0.63 $1.23 $1.09 $1.04 $0.88 $0.00 $4.87 Calculator attempts to consider economic return per pig from change in diet cost, feed efficiency, and growth rate. It does not account for any economic impact on yield or iodine value.

Incremental “potential” savings with DDGS 11‐17‐2014

$1.15 $2.35 $3.55 $4.56 $5.58 $6.53 $7.48 $8.32 $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 $/pig DDGS, %

Effect of DDGS (30%) and Midds (19%) at varied withdraw times prior to slaughter

• Exp. 1

72.7 72.5 72.5 72.2 72.0 71.2 69.0 70.0 71.0 72.0 73.0 74.0 Carcass Yield, %

Corn‐Soy 20 d 15 d 10 d 5 d High fiber Coble et al., 2013

Corn‐soy vs high fiber, P = 0.01 Withdraw effects, quadratic P < 0.03 SEM 0.20 Days fed corn‐soy from high fiber prior to marketing

Effect of DDGS (30%) and Midds (19%) at varied withdraw times prior to slaughter

• Exp. 1

203.3 200.7 201.6 200.7 199.9 196.8 195 198 201 204 207 Carcass weight, lb

Corn‐Soy 20 d 15 d 10 d 5 d High fiber Coble et al., 2013

Corn‐soy vs high fiber, P = 0.11 No withdraw effects, P > 0.29 SEM 2.88 Days fed corn‐soy from high fiber prior to marketing

Effect of DDGS (30%) and Midds (19%) at varied withdraw times prior to slaughter

• Exp. 2 (Nov 17, 2014 prices)

$70.69 $71.75 $74.07 $73.59 $73.04 $72.34 68 70 72 74 76 78 Income over feed, $/pig

Corn‐Soy 24 d 19 d 14 d 9 d High fiber Coble et al., 2013

Days fed corn‐soy from high fiber prior to marketing Value, $ 124.57 118.29 119.76 119.15 117.78 116.40 Feed, $ 53.88 46.55 45.68 45.56 44.74 44.06

Influence of SID Trp:Lys ratio on ADG

75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%

14 15.5 17 18.5 20 21.5 23 24.5

% of maximal ADG SID Trp:Lys, %

70 to 100 lb 120 to 180 lb 160 to 210 lb 235 to 280 lb Goncalves et al., 2014

Trp:Lys ratio as a percentage of maximum ADG Summary of all 4 GF trials

80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 105% 14.5% 16.5% 18.5% 20.5% 22.5% 24.5%

0.06 lb/d 0.10 lb/d 0.13 lb/d 0.04 lb/d 0.02 lb/d Max

Goncalves et al., 2014

ADG, lb =0.418+13.41*(Trp:Lys)‐28.39*(Trp:Lys)^2

Influence of SID Trp:Lys ratio on F/G

75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%

14 15.5 17 18.5 20 21.5 23 24.5

% of maximal gain/feed SID Trp:Lys, %

70 to 100 lb 120 to 180 lb 160 to 210 lb 235 to 280 lb Goncalves et al., 2014

Influence of Trp:Lys ratio on ADG of nursery pigs from 24 to 49 lb

0.81 0.94 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.96 0.75 0.85 0.95 1.05 14.5 16.5 18 19.5 21 22.5 24.5 ADG, lb Trp:Lys ratio, %

Goncalves et al., 2014

Trp:Lys ratio as a percentage of maximum ADG Regression analysis of nursery trial

80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 105% 14.5% 16.5% 18.5% 20.5% 22.5% 24.5%

0.03 lb/d 0.05 lb/d 0.08 lb/d 0.01 lb/d Max

Goncalves et al., 2014

Influence of Trp:Lys ratio on F/G of nursery pigs from 24 to 49 lb

1.84 1.72 1.72 1.73 1.69 1.71 1.72 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 14.5 16.5 18 19.5 21 22.5 24.5 Feed/gain Trp:Lys ratio, %

Goncalves et al., 2014 Broken line linear = 16.6%

Continue to focus on feed cost

DDGS

• Amino acids ‐ Good News, Bad News
• Fat – Offers some savings
• Avoid adding additives that don’t provide

benefit

– Some additives do provide benefit

• Don’t forget feed processing
• Rethink practices that cost money

Low‐protein, Amino Acid Diets with Corn or Milo A Good News Bad News Story

• 25 to 50 lb and 100 to 290 lb pigs
• 2 × 3 factorials:
• Milo vs. corn
• Amino acid supplementation (low, medium, or high).
• Low amino acids: L‐lysine HCl and DL‐methionine.
• Medium amino acids: L‐lysine HCl, DL‐methionine, and L‐

threonine

• High amino acids: L‐lysine HCl, DL‐methionine, L‐threonine,

and L‐valine.

.

1.54 1.53 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 Milo Corn F/G 1.05 1.05 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 Milo Corn ADG, lb

Effect of Grain Source on Average Daily Gain and Feed Efficiency – 25 to 50 lb Pigs

No differences

Jordan et al., 2014

No differences

1.53 1.51 1.55 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 Low Medium High F/G

No differences

1.06 1.05 1.04 0.50 0.70 0.90 1.10 1.30 Low Medium High ADG, lb

Effect of Amino Acid Supplementation on Average Daily Gain and Feed Efficiency – 25 to 50 lb Pigs

Jordan et al., 2014

No differences

2.92 2.84 2.70 2.80 2.90 3.00 Milo Corn F/G P < 0.01 1.97 2.02 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 Milo Corn ADG, lb

Effect of Grain Source on Average Daily Gain and Feed Efficiency – 100 to 290 lb Pigs

P < 0.07

Jordan et al., 2014

2.90 2.86 2.88 2.50 2.60 2.70 2.80 2.90 3.00 Low Medium High F/G 2.01 2.03 1.95 1.80 1.90 2.00 2.10 Low Medium High ADG, lb Quadratic, P < 0.05

Effect of Amino Acid Supplementation on Average Daily Gain and Feed Efficiency – 100 to 290 lb Pigs

Jordan et al., 2014

67.9 67.9 67.3 68.8 68.9 69.6 65.0 67.0 69.0 71.0 Low Medium High Low Medium High IV Milo vs. Corn, P < 0.01

Effect of Amino Acid Supplementation on Iodine Value – 100 to 290 lb Pigs

Jordan et al., 2014

Milo Corn

Amino Acids

Even though crystalline amino acids can save money, its their availability that is the issue!

Amino Acid Shortages

• L‐lysine HCl – shortage of HCl due to oil industry
• DL‐methionine ‐ shortage of precursors in

manufacturing process

• L‐threonine – economic situation for manufacturing

» China

• Options – corn‐soybean meal with some L‐lysine
• DDGS‐based diets do not need much Methionine or

Threonine

• Save amino acids currently on hand for starter diets

Effects of Increasing L‐lysine HCl on Finishing Pig Growth Performance

1.66 1.76 1.78 1.75 1.76 1.66 1.64 1.64 1.56 1.60 1.64 1.68 1.72 1.76 1.80 Neg 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 L-lysine HCl, % ADG, lb

De La Llatta, et al., 2000

Linear, (P < 0.01)

Economics of Added Fat in Finishing Diets

• Depends on grain and fat prices

–Corn $3.50

• Fat $.33 = $.66 loss
• Fat $.30 = Breakeven
• Fat $.27 = $.63 benefit

1.39 1.50 1.53 1.46 1.48 1.46 1.44 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.50 1.55 1.60 Control 2.5 5.0 2.5 5.0 2.5 5.0 ADG, lb

Comparison of Different Levels and Sources of Oil

• n Nursery Pig Performance

Soybean Oil Corn Oil 1 Corn Oil 2

Jordan et al., 2014

Source × level interaction; P < 0.05

1.60 1.51 1.46 1.48 1.40 1.49 1.44 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.50 1.55 1.60 1.65 Control 2.5 5.0 2.5 5.0 2.5 5.0 F/G

Comparison of Different Levels and Sources of Oil

• n Nursery Pig Performance

Soybean Oil Corn Oil 1 Corn Oil 2

Jordan et al., 2014

Each oil source, linear, P < 0.05)

1.42 1.42 1.42 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Control Soybean Oil Corn Oil ONE

ADG, lb

Effects of Oil Source and Level on Pig Performance – 25 to 50 lb

1.54 1.45 1.44 1.25 1.35 1.45 1.55 1.65 Control Soybean Oil Corn Oil ONE

F/G

Jordan et al., 2014

P < 0.05

Effects of Oil Source and Level on Income

• ver Feed Costs – 25 to 50 lb

13.47 13.83 13.88 13.00 13.20 13.40 13.60 13.80 14.00 2.5 5 Oil level, %

IOFC, $/pig

Jordan et al., 2014

Effects of Dietary Copper, Zinc, Essential Oils and Chlortetracycline (CTC) on Nursery Pig Growth Performance

• Copper sulfate (CuSO4; 0 vs. 125 ppm Cu)
• Zinc oxide (ZnO; none vs. 3,000 ppm Zn from d 5 to 12 and 2,000

ppm Zn from d 12 to 33),

• Essential oils blend
• Feed–grade medication Growth‐promoting and therapeutic levels
• f chlortetracycline (CTC at 50 or 400 g/ton). (CTC was removed

from the diet on d 19 then added again from d 20 to 33.

0.96 1.01 1.04 0.92 0.96 1.02 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 Control Cu Zn EO CTC50 CTC400 ADG, lb b b c

Effects of Dietary Copper, Zinc, Essential Oils and Chlortetracycline (CTC) on Nursery Pig Growth Performance Day 5 to 33

a

Feldpausch et al., 2014

C Linear effect of CTC

0.78 0.83 0.85 0.88 0.88 0.92 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 50 400 50 400 ADG, lb

Effects of Zinc Oxide and Chlortetracycline on Nursery Pig Growth Performance

0 2500 CTC, g/ton Zinc from ZnO, ppm

Feldpausch et al., 2014

ZnO; P < 0.01 Linear effect of CTC; P < 0.01

0.58 0.60 0.67 0.60 0.70 0.76 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 Control 500 1,500 500 1,500 3,000

Encapsulated ZnO, linear, P < 0.07 ZnO, linear, P < 0.01

Effects of Dietary Zinc Source Nursery Pig Growth Performance ‐ Day 7 to 21

Encapsulated ZnO ZnO

Jordan et al., 2014

ADG, lb

1.22 1.10 1.07 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.5 3

Effects of Vomitoxin (DON) and Algae‐modified Clay Average Daily Gain ‐ 25 to 50 lb

1.15 1.12 1.13 0.50 0.70 0.90 1.10 1.30 1.50 0.17 0.5 Algae‐Modified Clay, %

Fowler et al., 2014

Vomitoxin, ppm ADG, lb ADG, lb

Vomitoxin and Other Mycotoxins

• Some initial reports indicating some vomitoxin

in DDGS (~ 3.0 ppm)

• We need to continually monitor the situation
• If you have DON‐contaminated grain

– Dilution is best solution – Sodium metabisulfite or Defusion for short periods provides benefit

Feed Additive Potential Opportunities

• Skycis 100 (Narasin)
• Tri‐Basic Copper Chloride
• Ractopamine Hydrochloride

Skycis™ Label

• No withdrawal period is required when used according to the label.
• Swine being fed with Skycis (narasin) should not have access to

feeds containing pleuromutalins (e.g., tiamulin) as adverse reactions may occur.

Indications Appropriate concentration of narasin in Type C Medicated feed Increased rate of weight gain in growing‐finishing swine when fed for at least 4 weeks 13.6 to 27.2 g/ton (15 ppm to 30 ppm) Increased rate of weight gain and improved feed efficiency in growing‐ finishing swine when fed for at least 4 weeks 18.1 to 27.2 g/ton (20 ppm to 30 ppm)

USSBUNEW00006

Tri‐Basic Copper Chloride on HCW

3.9 7.7 3.5 5.6 5.0 2 4 6 8 10 Change vs. Control, lb

Ractopamine Hydrochloride

• Traditionally known as Paylean (Elanco)

– This past year product concentration level changed and is now 2.25 g/ton – Thus, 4 lb/ton Paylean = 9 g/ton of complete feed

• Engain 9 (Zoetis) is a new commercial product

– Product concentration level is 9 g/ton – Thus, 1 lb/ton Engain = 9 g/ton of complete feed

• Know your product and inclusion level

Wheat and Particle Size

• Surprising little research has been completed

evaluating wheat particle size and finishing pigs

• Wheat is more likely to “flour” as particle size is

reduced

• Do pigs respond similarly to particle size in meal and

pelleted diets – no available data

• Important to further understand ground wheat in

swine diets to capture value when economical to use

44 44 49 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 728 µ 579 µ 326 µ

Effect of wheat particle size on angle of repose of meal diets

Particle size, µ Angle of Repose, ˚

r h

De Jong et al., 2014

2.02 2.01 2.04 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 728 µ 579 µ 326 µ Linear P = 0.47 Quadratic P = 0.47 SEM = 0.02

Effect of wheat particle size on ADG (d 0 to 83; BW 97 ‐ 265 lb)

Particle size, µ ADG, lb

De Jong et al., 2014

5.71 5.58 5.57 5.40 5.50 5.60 5.70 5.80 728 µ 579 µ 326 µ Linear P = 0.13 Quadratic P = 0.43 SEM = 0.06

Effect of wheat particle size on ADFI (d 0 to 83; BW 97 – 265 lb)

Particle size, µ ADFI, lb

De Jong et al., 2014

2.83 2.77 2.73 2.66 2.70 2.74 2.78 2.82 2.86 728 µ 579 µ 326 µ Linear P = 0.001 Quadratic P = 0.82 SEM = 0.02

Effect of wheat particle size on F/G (d 0 to 83; BW 97 – 265 lb)

Particle size, µ F/G

De Jong et al., 2014

88.95 91.15 91.47 80 84 88 92 96 100 728 µ 579 µ 326 µ Linear P = 0.01 Quadratic P = 0.25 SEM = 0.70

Effect of wheat particle size on DM Digestibility

Particle size, µ DM Digestibility, %

De Jong et al., 2014

2.00 2.01 2.02 1.95 1.98 2.01 2.04 2.07 2.10 600 µ 400 µ 200 µ No effect, P = 0.51 SEM = 0.02

Effect of wheat particle size on ADG (Pelleted Diets) (BW 96 ‐ 277 lb)

Particle size, µ ADG, lb

De Jong et al., 2014

2.60 2.58 2.59 2.42 2.50 2.58 2.66 2.74 2.82 600 µ 400 µ 200 µ No effect, P = 0.85 SEM = 0.01

Effect of wheat particle size on F/G (Pelleted diets) (BW 96 – 277 lb)

Particle size, µ F/G

De Jong et al., 2014

Retrospective Analysis of Particle Size by Mill Type

400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 10/18/12 1/26/13 5/6/13 8/14/13 11/22/13 3/2/14 6/10/14 9/18/14 12/27/14

2013 2‐high Roller Mill Average Particle size = 602 µ 2014 3‐high Roller Mill Average Particle size = 530 µ

Pellet Quality

• Past research at KSU has shown that >25%

fines in pelleted feed at the feeder results in similar growth performance to feeding mash.

• No research to document where the fines are

generated from the pellet mill to the feeder.

Pellet location within feed mill on percentage fines

9.4 8.5 14.2 20.5 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Pellet Mill Cooler Fat Coater Load‐out

c

Percentage Fines, %

abc P < 0.05

SEM = 0.77

c a b

De Jong et al., 2014

Pellet location within feed mill on PDI

77.0 78.3 84.6 81.9 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 Pellet Mill Cooler Fat Coater Load‐out

d

PDI, %

abcd P < 0.05

SEM = 0.82

c a b

De Jong et al., 2014

Crude protein of pellets and fines

13.58 15.24 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 Fines Pellets CP, %

Fines vs pellets, P < 0.05 SEM = 0.48 De Jong et al., 2014

Fat concentration of pellets and fines

9.00 7.71 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 Fines Pellets Fat, %

Fines vs pellets, P < 0.05 SEM = 0.20 De Jong et al., 2014

Effects of pelleting regime on F/G

2.46 2.33 2.38 2.37 2.38 2.36 2.20 2.30 2.40 2.50 2.60

c

F/G

abc P < 0.05

SEM = 0.002

a b b b b

De Jong et al., 2014

Effects of pelleting regime on pig removals per pen

0.50 1.92 1.06 0.93 0.85 0.92 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

b

Removals/pen

ab P < 0.05

SEM = 0.265

a b b b b

De Jong et al., 2014

Effects of pelleting regime on stomach morphology (combined ulceration & keratinization)

5.26 6.72 6.72 4.61 6.15 5.32 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 Score

P < 0.08 SEM = 0.613 De Jong et al., 2014

Should you bump feed?

• 1105 sows
• 2 x 2 factorial

– SID Lysine intake (10.7 vs 20.0 g/d) – NE intake (4.5 vs 6.7 Mcal/d)

• D 90 to farrowing

Goncalves et al., 2015

Influence of lysine and energy intake from d 90 to farrowing on sow weight gain

26.3 32.8 40.7 52.4 10 20 30 40 50 60 10.7 g 20 g Lys 10.7 g Lys 20 g Lys

Weight gain, lb

Low energy (4.5 Mcal NE) High energy (6.7 Mcal NE) Goncalves et al., 2015 Lys, P < 0.001 Energy, P < 0.001

Influence of lysine and energy intake from d 90 to farrowing on born alive

14.1 13.8 13.7 13.9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Low Lys High Lys Low Lys High Lys

Born alive

Low energy High energy Goncalves et al., 2015 P = 0.215

Influence of lysine and energy intake from d 90 to farrowing on litter birth weight

42.6 42.0 42.3 42.9 30 33 36 39 42 45 Low Lys High Lys Low Lys High Lys

Litter birth wt, lb

Low energy High energy Goncalves et al., 2015 P = 0.189

Effects of Electrostatic Particle Ionization on Hog Barn Air Quality, Emissions and Pig Growth Performance

• J. A. De Jong, J. M. DeRouchey, and
• M. Baumgartner

Kansas State University, Manhattan

De Jong et al., 2014

Effect of EPI system on dust in inside air

‐ 39 to 56% reduction

100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 0.3 0.5 1 2.5 5 10 Inside dust, particles/min Particle size, µ Control EPI

*P < 0.02 * * * * * * De Jong et al., 2014

Effect of EPI system on dust in exhaust air

‐ 48 to 64% reduction

20 40 60 80 100 120 0.3 0.5 1 2.5 5 10 Exhaust dust, particles/m3 Particle size, µ Control EPI

*P < 0.02 * * * * * * De Jong et al., 2014

Effect of EPI system on ADG

0.91 0.97

0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

Control EPI ADG, lb P < 0.09 SEM = 0.028

De Jong et al., 2014

EPI system – removes dust from the air

New Nursery Building at the K‐State Swine Teaching and Research Center

Special “Thank You”: Kansas Pork Association Department of Animal Sciences and Industry Midwest Livestock Systems Inc. KSU Campus Planning and Facilities Management Pat Murphy Swine Farm Crew

New Nursery Barn Information:

• Overall building dimensions = 140’ x 33’
• 86 pens with a capacity of up to 5 pigs per pen
• Connecting hallway to existing buildings for access to

sow farrowing and nursery

• Feed room (16’ x 33’) for bagged research diet storage
• Two bulk feed bins to provide standard nursery feed

directly to the feed room or individual pens

• Galvanized gating and flooring
• Hanging floor scale for weighing entire pens of pigs
• Multiple windows to provide natural lighting
• Easy adjust feeders and nipple waterers in each pen

KSU Swine Day 2014